Translating ‘proportionate universal healthcare’ into meaningful system design to optimize equity in child and family services

Abstract

AbstractAimTo conduct a child and family health nursing service redesign to improve pathways of access, response and outcomes for all families with children aged 0–5 years.DesignThe study was conducted as an iterative, mixed‐method study of the process and impact of the service redesign, informed by a participatory action research paradigm and the NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation process for developing a model of care.MethodsDiagnostic, solution design, implementation and sustainability phases were undertaken. Quantitative analyses were undertaken of administrative data, and child and family health nurse and client surveys. Qualitative analyses were undertaken of design workshops.ResultsThe administrative data demonstrated that prior to the redesign service provision was the same for all clients regardless of levels of risk. The design solution, developed through a series of diagnostic and visioning workshops, included multiple new client response pathways. Implementation included development of tools and training. Sustainability of the redistribution of resources to the new pathways was assessed though an evaluation demonstrating a positive impact for families with adversity, with no deleterious effects for families receiving a universal response, and improvements in the emotional labour undertaken by nurses. Despite this, nurse burnout increased post‐redesign.ConclusionThe shift from equal services (everyone receives the same) to equitable proportionate universal provision in response to need can be achieved and has positive impacts for nurses and families.ImpactThis study shows the value of undertaking a systematic and participatory approach to service redesign. A proportionate universalism approach can ensure that early childhood nursing services are available to all in relation to needs.Reporting methodThe Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) check‐list was used to guide reporting.Patient or public contributionNo patient or public contribution.